Concept of civil obedience and disobedience: a comparison of the work of Etienne De La Boetie and Sayyid Qutb

Abstract

This paper explores the concepts of obedience and disobedience as reactions to the control of the State based on the nonviolent civil disobedient ideology of Etienne de le Boeti (1530 – 1563) and the radical revivalist Islamic ideology of Sayyid Qutb (1906 – 1966). For Boetie, the main focus of political philosophy is why people consent to their own enslavement. In other words, why people support states that suppress them directly or indirectly. Why do people, always, in all places, obey and follow the commands of the governments which is made up of a small minority of the society. In his view, the central problem of political philosophy should be, understanding this mystery of civil obedience. Both Qutb and Boeti accept that states or governments are more vulnerable than people think. They can collapse in an instant particularly, when people withdraw their consent. Despite agreeing on the importance of the withdrawal of consent from the state and that this withdrawal of support can lead to the state collapsing, the means they suggest for how this should be done differ, vastly. Boeti advises in his writings that this should be done in a non-violent manner whereas Qutb encourages the use of radical violent means that he describes using the concepts; jahiliyya, hakimiyyah, and jihad. This article compares both of their arguments, their effectiveness, and their influence on contemporary politics of the Western and Islamic world.